I like this film and much of what I see from the Skeptics Society. I’ve even been to some lectures sponsored by the group. However, I am often not a fan of Shermer on the subject of religion. I disagree with him on the correct skeptical position with regard to god. He believes the skeptics position to be agnosticism. I don’t see enough evidence to give any credence at all to that hypothesis. Consider these two.

God                      Fire-Breathing Dragon
======================== =============================
Much literature about    Much literature about dragons
god(s)

Makes a good film        Makes a good film character.
character

No evidence of any god   No evidence of fire-breathing
ever having existed.     dragons ever having existed.

So, exactly why do we give credence to one hypothesis but not the other? I give equal weight to all hypotheses for which there is not a shred of evidence. Hence, I am an atheist. Shermer calls himself a skeptic and has created the Skeptics Society. Yet, for some reason, he gives some level of credence to the god hypothesis, at least enough for doubt. Anyway, this film was quite good in my opinion and has no mention of atheism versus agnosticism, so does not bug me.

The maker of this video does give the disclaimer that the video is not intended to cover the topic of abiogenesis. I’ll take a bit of a whack at that to add to the completeness here. The argument that the watch proves the watchmaker goes like this. If you’re walking on a sandy beach and you see a watch, you can assume that someone made the watch. This is a fair bet for the normal circumstances of our lives, but is also a strawman.

If you are walking on a beach made up of billions of watch parts that are constantly being churned by each passing wave, and if the watch parts have the natural affinity for each other that the chemicals of life have and if a sufficiently simple enough segment of a timepiece, even if it cannot tell time, can reproduce, and that telling time to any degree conveys an evolutionary advantage, then after some number of millions of years, I would expect to find a beach littered with watches of various styles and types and even some clocks and grandfather clocks.

All analogies are just that. However, as pointed out in the video, this is the analogy chosen by creationists. This second paragraph is a far more accurate analogy to life on this planet, while still being just an analogy. However, remember, the watch parts (actually amino acids in the real world) have recently been found in comets. So, the early solar system did already have the building blocks for life in sufficient quantity to show that the beach made of gears and springs and such is a far more accurate analogy to the early earth than a sandy beach with a lone watch on it.

For those who missed the news of the amino acid on a comet, here’s an article in New Scientist.

Found: first amino acid on a comet

If you care about separation of church and state, though the number of people who do appears to be shrinking, please sign this petition to restore our nation’s motto and to remove the McCarthy era addition to the pledge of allegiance.

From the petition text:

Congress undermined American unity in 1954 when it added “Under God” to our Pledge of Allegiance and again in 1956 when it replaced our 175 year old national motto, E Pluribus Unum (“Out Of Many, One”), with “In God We Trust”, thus demoting to an implied outsider status the agnostics, atheists, deists, polytheists and other citizens who do not ascribe to this theology. Ideological contention is a necessary and desired result of the freedoms that are the real source of our unity and strength. These laws, by claiming that our unity rests on disregarding the reality of such sincere individual disagreement, are self-defeating.

E. Pluribus Unum — Out Of Many, One

Thanks to Overcaffeinated for the tip.

For those who wish to go beyond this one petition, consider checking out the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I always enjoy reading things like this list of the Top 50 Atheism Quotes. Since their number one quote is from George Carlin, and it sounds so much better in his own voice, here it is for anyone that has not already watched this segment.

However, in this case, I must say that I was a bit disappointed that they did not include the quote by Pierre-Simon Laplace (of Laplace Transformation fame) when speaking to Napoleon. Perhaps it was omitted because it is usually misquoted a tad and may not even have a perfectly accurate translation to English. However, since it is one of my personal favorites, I hope that you will read the details of the Laplace and Napoleon encounter on wikipedia.

I was also disappointed that they did not include any quotes from Robert Heinlein. So, I also hope you will click to read these quotes about religion from Robert A. Heinlein.

Thanks to rit for the link to the list that started this post!

It has been said that the differences between a cult and a religion lie in duration and number of followers. This isn’t really a bad way to think about it and points to the obvious conclusion that all religions began as cults. However, in my opinion, we should abandon one word or the other from our normal discourse.

Why do I think so?

Well, whether one is speaking of Scientology or Judaism, Objectivism or Christianity, Mormon or Islam, Hindu or Astrology, Greek Pantheon or Norse, the classification of what is being discussed is the same. It is blind unquestioning faith. If one is to call the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Mormon a religion and then refer to the faiths of Scientology, Objectivism, Wiccan, Astrology, Druidism, or some other faith as a cult, my concern is not that members of these latter faiths may feel that their faith has been put down. My concern is that members in the former group may feel that their faith is legitimized. I wish to avoid giving encouragement to any belief based on unfounded or outlandish claims.

Why abandon cult not religion?

Well, it might seem fun to abandon the term religion and call all faiths cults. However, this is unlikely to actually happen. It seems far more likely that those of us of no faith could encourage use of the word religion to describe all of these. In fact, members of the faiths of Scientology, Wiccan, and many others will likely feel offended if their faiths are termed cults while others are still called religions. So, we have a perfect moral high ground for referring to all irrational beliefs of this sort as religions; we can just claim we’re being politically correct.

Perhaps relabeling all of these faiths the same way will take the edge of the religious right’s claim that each of the religions owns the one true faith or even that some have more validity than others. When all faiths are treated equally, perhaps we can encourage some recognition that none have any great claim to be the one true answer. In fact, from where I sit, all have equal validity, i.e. none at all. Once there, maybe, just maybe we can then begin to drop religion altogether.

Why would this be good?

Well, people have always found ways to divide Us and Them. This is unfortunate because in reality we are all Us. There is no Them. So, if we drop religion on its pointy little head, we will lose one of many sources for divisiveness and xenophobia. We will lose just one of many reasons people commit horrific atrocities. It is always OK to kill Them. In fact, religion often requires it.

So, just as some religious individuals claim to hate the sin while loving the sinner, I would say that I hate religion even though I have nothing against the religious people themselves. As a misanthrope, I’d be dishonest if I said that I loved everyone. But, I do not hate individuals (at least until I get to know them better ). I just hate our species. Perhaps if we could learn not to divide ourselves into sects, I’d have one less reason to hate our species.

So, while I’d really love to get rid of the word religion and just label all of them cults or even mass delusions, I think that it unrealistic. Let’s at least make a move for consistency in naming. Let’s see if perhaps we can at least take the mainstream religions down a notch or two by recognizing that they are no more or less valid than Scientology and the like. Perhaps it will be one small step toward a less theistic society. Perhaps it will be one small step toward an age of reason.

We need a new word to denote one who believes that for which there is overwhelming evidence and gives credence to that for which there is some evidence and gives no credence to that for which there is no evidence. Scientist might be used as a word to mean a believer in science. However, just as sexist has already been used for another purpose, so can’t be used to indicate one who believes in sex, scientist has already been used to indicate one who actually practices science for a living, so cannot be used to indicate a believer in the tremendous value of scientific evidence.

Atheist is actually a bad word for this because, as Dawkins points out in God Delusion, this defines one by their non-belief. I am an atheist. I am also an athorist and an azeusist and an aodinist and an abaalist, etc. For this reason, I prefer to call myself an antitheist. This works for me because I actually do believe religion is an evil institution and am opposed to all forms of theism. So, for me, this works.

However, we still do not have a good name for one who does not oppose theism, but simply does not believe in it. Skeptic is one word that could accurately describe such a philosophy, but is also overloaded with other meaning both connotations and denotations.

So, the question is, what should we call someone that believes that extraordinary claims, such as an invisible man in the sky, must be backed up by evidence in order to be given credence (other than unelectable for office at any level anywhere in this U.S.)?

First, let me make a few things clear to avoid a bunch of misunderstandings.

1. I am an atheist and antitheist. This means I do not believe in any deity, including Jesus, and so don’t really believe my own title.
2. I do not hate Christianity more than any other type of theism. I am writing this post primarily in response to Higghawker who has repeatedly posted scripture on my site, presumably with the intent of converting me. It is my hope to redirect all such replies to this topic and leave non-religious topics free of mythological influence.
3. I believe it is highly unlikely that Jesus ever existed as a human being.

So, why the title? Well, in my place and time, I have had more Christians attempt to convert me than other religions. Further, as far as I know, alone among religions in current practice, Christianity has the concept of Hell. I have had some Christians dispute this with me. However, most Christians believe in a Hell where sinners and non-believers go for eternity.

And here, is the crux (so to speak) of this issue for me. If Jesus loves me, why would he send me to Hell? Isn’t sending someone to burn and scream in pain and agony in a place of ultimate suffering with no hope for eventual reprieve for all of eternity until the end of time itself, the very definition of hatred? If one can believe in any of this crap, isn’t Jesus therefore the ultimate grudge holder? And, if Jesus holds this ultimate and eternal grudge for simply not believing in him, isn’t he also a narcissistic bastard?

I also feel it is rather capricious of Jesus to lump both sinners and non-believers together in this way. On the one hand are people who, by my definition of sin, have caused deliberate, intentional, and unnecessary harm to others. On the other hand are people who are good and decent humans. Many give to charities, help their neighbors, treat others with respect, and generally lead a good life. However, this latter category simply does not believe in Jesus. Some may be atheists or agnostics. Some may be members of other religions. Some may even be Christian, but based on what some people believe, just don’t believe the correct flavor of Christianity or perform the correct rituals. Would a good and just deity really lump all of these people together in Hell?

Would a god that was all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-forgiving really create a Hell in the first place? If so, why? Certainly sending someone there is not all-forgiving, whatever else it may be.

So, the question is, if one believes that non-believers actually do get sent to Hell, then why do evangelicals persist in stating, “Jesus Loves You.” Wouldn’t it be far more accurate and self-consistent to simply admit what seems obvious to me.

Jesus Hates Me!